Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

I'm surprised nobody has written yet about Brandywine Springs. The place has a fascinating, multi-century story, tracing from Native American gatherings and legends; to General George Washington preparing promptly-abandoned defense works against the oncoming Howe/Cornwallis assault; to a fashionable spa and hotel (designed by U.S. Capitol Building architect T.U. Walker) located on the site from 1827-1853 and visited by such notables as Henry Clay; followed by a thriving early-20th century amusement park.

I'd like to write the article for a wiki, but I think this one's going to Wikipedia Review, not Wikipedia.

Let the work begin! (I believe that Cla68 is even going to help me out on this article.)

There is a redirect to 'mathematical function', but that has nothing to speak of of the 'propositional' variety. So, here is a concept fundamental to the development of analytic philosophy and logic in the twentieth century, that every undergraduate philosophy and philosophy student will have to learn about, and Wikipedia has almost nothing about it, and no separate article at all.

Even better, I can now simply declare that the next Peter Damian sock is going to create a separate, well-sourced article on the propositional function (and perhaps email a few significant admins such as Mikaey of this intention). Result: the Wikipedia administration will be closely watching for the creation of such an article in order to block anyone who is trying to build a serious and comprehensive reference work by adding important new material.

This problem is not isolated. The Wikipedia article on monastic houses in Staffordshire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monas...n_Staffordshire shows how many redlinks there are. People who say that Wikipedia is in its 'saturation phase' are only correct relative to the universe of possible articles about Britney Spears. Relative to the universe of old priories, medieval philosophers, English villages, and so on, Wikipedia is mostly empty.

Yes, and Guido is spinning it as a giant WP conspiracy, when it in fact it really must be spun as a Canada vs. (UK and US) conspiracy, since the UK and US definitions don't recognize "myalgic encephalomyelitis." Worse still the "consensus document" from Canada about ME is symptom-driven: objective tests are not needed criteria. This is despite what you'll read on ME websites which claim that there are objective tests for ME. Even Canada recognizes none. So much for THAT consensus.

I take it that you have not actually read the document. The Canadian consensus definition of ME/CFS (i.e. not of ME or CFS separately!) includes a protocol that describes what research needs to be done. The old Fukuda and Holmes definitions for CFS (we now have Reeves, that is 10 times as many patients) also explicitly state that patients need to be thoroughly medically examined. Obviously, no CFS definition recognizes ME, just like no definition of cancer or of a bicycle does. ME definitions recognize ME. There are UK (Ramsay) and Canadian (Hyde) definitions of ME.

QUOTE

As for the giant conspiracy which covers up something that the WHO believed in, in 1969, well, science moves on.

It certainly does. Wikipedia otoh only moves backwards.

QUOTE

We're still waiting for the mechanism of "chronic fatigue."

The mechanism of chronic fatigue is well known and has been for quite some time, in part thanks to ME researchers like Behan.

Sorry, missed all this before.

The interesting thing here is that the WHO DOES recognised Myaligic Encephalomyelitis as a neurological disorder (since 1969). The term DOES have a history of use (including it's dismissal by two psychs who never saw any of the patients of the Royal Free epidemic). It is a term over which there is controversy. Whatever Milton's view of the WHO's recognition (trivialising) or anybody's view of the illness, it SHOULD be notable enough for a separate page detailing the term.

What actually happened was that JFW, very soon after the debacle on the Simon Wessely page leading to me being defamed then 'excommunicated' by the God-King himself , nominated a perfectly good article that Guido had composed for deletion, and various others chimed in.

If the general public look up Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, then they should be able to see where the term came from, especially as there is some confusion as to 'CFS's relationship to 'ME' with regard to WHO.

I don't know who 'Tekaphor' is (he edits the CFS and Wessely pages), but one thing he said struck with me, basically along the lines of, as soon as people try to sort out problems on the CFS page, they get metaphorical eyerolling and some lame-arsed comments about "'well everything is physical anyway".

Again, I don't think WP has the infrastructure to deal with sublety and complexity- so I'd rather CFS was a short stub (and ME), and other subjects, because the damage to real-world people by ideologically driven edit-warring is absurd, yet serious.

Here's what I don't understand, Peter. At this point, you really ought to have given up trying to assist Wikipedia, and you ought to start assisting yourself. My suggestion:

(1) Get yourself a Google AdSense account.(2) Create the world's most comprehensive collective directory of abbeys and priories on Wikipedia Review, similar to what you've done with the Logic Museum.(3) License it as "all rights reserved", so that Wikipedia can't thieve your work.(4) Sit back and collect the AdSense revenue, or be more proactive and contact the local tourism boards or chambers of commerce of the towns near these institutions and sell them customized advertising space.(5) Every 12 or 18 months or so, you may be getting a $100 check from Google. Take your wife out to a nice dinner, and laugh about how silly Wikipedia was for forcing you to have taken your intellectual contributions to another venue.

You've already thoroughly proven your point (and may continue to do so) on Wikipedia subjects that are not so wide-open and ripe for advertising support. Travel, tourism, history, beautiful buildings on beautiful grounds. Don't let this one fall into your basket of "I'll show Wikipedia a thing or two".

(4) Sit back and collect the AdSense revenue, or be more proactive and contact the local tourism boards or chambers of commerce of the towns near these institutions and sell them customized advertising space.(5) Every 12 or 18 months or so, you may be getting a $100 check from Google. Take your wife out to a nice dinner, and laugh about how silly Wikipedia was for forcing you to have taken your intellectual contributions to another venue.

Not quite that simple. You'd also need to convince some person or thing to "visit" the ads.

I understand that's part of the problem over at ED. The site is plastered with adware which nobody would click on—not with a stolen mouse—so they still need to beg for donations.

(4) Sit back and collect the AdSense revenue, or be more proactive and contact the local tourism boards or chambers of commerce of the towns near these institutions and sell them customized advertising space.(5) Every 12 or 18 months or so, you may be getting a $100 check from Google. Take your wife out to a nice dinner, and laugh about how silly Wikipedia was for forcing you to have taken your intellectual contributions to another venue.

Not quite that simple. You'd also need to convince some person or thing to "visit" the ads.

I understand that's part of the problem over at ED. The site is plastered with adware which nobody would click on—not with a stolen mouse—so they still need to beg for donations.

I think that's where the "contact the local tourism boards or chambers of commerce" (and sell them ads) bit fits in... some ads are a bit safer than others. I'm more likely to click an ad that says "learn more about Hawksbury Priory by visiting the Rugely County Stafforshire chamber of commerce site" (while on a page about Hawksbury Priory) than I am to click an ad that says "learn more about coprophagia by visiting the 2girls1cup site" (while on a page about something unrelated), frankly. And that's ED's money problem in a nutshell. What reputable site would want to advertise there?

Yes, WP being what it is, there is no hope that it will ever be able to deal with users that purposely spread misinformation, so a short stub would be way better.

JFW is employed by the NHS in England and therefore attempts to push that horrible NICE guideline.

Needless to say, that this giant conflict of interest has not been declared by this user...

To be honest Guido, I don't think being an NHS employee per se will necessarily guarantee support of any NICE Guidelines.

However, JFW has a very obvious ideologically- driven POV at the very least on illnesses like 'CFS' or 'ME' (though there are others), on controversial doctors, on uppity patients and their advocates etc. If one looks through his comments on talk pages and his edits over the years (or even relatively recently) it can clearly be seen. I have no idea whether he is a meatpuppet for 'vested interests' or not. However I feel confident that it can be demonstrated that he has an extremely problematic ideological standpoint on at least some subjects, and commits blatantly partisan behaviour on Wikipedia, and he doesn't get called on it. The likes of you or I Guido however, openly and honestly expressive of our Conflicts of Interest, have been hounded and libelled.

What is of particular concern for me is the way JFW uses his doctor status (actually a junior doctor who has been also reprimanded by the GMC after a patient died) to claim expertise and authority on Wikipedia (though others do that for him also), in order to wage POV wars etc. I think people like JFW represent the problems around claimed 'expertise' on Wikipedia, how easily an assumed air of authority will bamboozle people, how claims to expertise get subjected to games of trumps etc in the power struggle to win 'the game' of truth-claiming, and how such complex issues can never be addressed successfully on Wikipedia. I'm very rarely a person who says 'never'- and yet I cannot see WP ever being able to resolve these issues.

because it was written by a 'banned user'. Patrick Ryan, son of Sir Andrew Ryan (himself an interesting character, British diplomat, spy, present at the early days of the House of Saud), brother of John Ryan whom everyone of my generation is familiar with from 'Captain Pugwash', and himself an influential teacher who was mentor to Geach and Anscombe, McDermott (translator of Aquinas). But not notable enough for Wikipedia and in any case the article was written by a 'banned user'.

How much more of a farce can this be?

[edit] Ironically, Triplestop is on some stupid 'article creation' project.

(cur) (prev) 19:50, 19 September 2009 Lar (talk | contribs) (3,106 bytes) (Null edit. At first glance this seems a reasonable article, sourced to reliable sources, about a person who's notable enough to get an obit in the London Times. Not a valid speedy) (undo)

Yes, the obit in the Times should have been a clue for 'TripleStop'. As also was the fact he taught some highly influential and important living philosophers. the problem is, Lar, that while you and I have our disagreements, you are like Thatcher one of the 'old guard' who have some judgment and are able to see when to follow the rules, and when to turn a blind eye for the good of the project (Wikipedia I mean).

This new lot are really just barbarians.

Thanks for saving the Ryan article anyway. You know I really care about that sort of thing.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 19th September 2009, 7:57pm

Oh. THAT project. I thought maybe you meant the work of countless doughty and dauntless Wikipedia volunteers there for a second. Silly me.

"Do you support this project or not?" - Obviously not.

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 19th September 2009, 3:54pm)

And here you do show a particle of sense.

QUOTE

(cur) (prev) 19:50, 19 September 2009 Lar (talk | contribs) (3,106 bytes) (Null edit. At first glance this seems a reasonable article, sourced to reliable sources, about a person who's notable enough to get an obit in the London Times. Not a valid speedy) (undo)

Yes, the obit in the Times should have been a clue for 'TripleStop'. As also was the fact he taught some highly influential and important living philosophers.

Thanks for saving the Ryan article anyway. You know I really care about that sort of thing.

That's the part I don't get. If you've been as hard done by as you think, why give the (wikipedia) project your efforts? What satisfaction do you derive? I'd have found a new hobby by now, were I you.

A good part of what keeps me around is that it's fun to work on articles like this one: Rika's Landing Roadhouse or this one: Alaska Road Commission ... certainly not 'important' in the grand scheme of things but fun to write, and useful. I think they are anyway...

But if SV et al had succeeded in their smear campaign last year I would have downed tools and found a new hobby. Maybe I shouldn't admit that, but there it is.

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 19th September 2009, 3:59pm)

QUOTE(Lar @ Sat 19th September 2009, 8:57pm)

Oh. THAT project. I thought maybe you meant the work of countless doughty and dauntless Wikipedia volunteers there for a second. Silly me.

Who are these? Where are the articles? This thread is about all the articles that are missing in Wikipedia.